Now it comes back to me. The blurb for the 400 when QF introduced it was that it was the first acft that could fly to the US non-stop under ANY AND ALL weather/load conditions. Previously the 300s sometimes needed a stop in HNL during certain seasons/winds/load factors. What did the S/F look like when you flew, Dave? Grant SYD QF At 11:19 PM 07/08/03 +1000, you wrote: >Dont know if this helps but I was definatly on a QF 743 SYD-LAX non stop in >1996 and 1997. > >Dave >MEL > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Grant McKenzie" <gjmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 8:17 PM >Subject: Re: SP vs. 400 > > > > I don't think they ever did this due to payload restrictions. With a > > reasonable pax load the 200s and 300s always needed a stop in HNL. It > > wasn't until the 400 was released that anybody could fly the Pacific >non-stop. > > > > As an aside, I know the SP flew SYD-HNL-YVR but I don't recall them flying > > to LAX. Could be wrong, though. > > > > Grant > > SYD > > QF > > > > > > At 04:39 PM 05/08/03 -0400, you wrote: > > >In a message dated 8/5/2003 1:30:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >RWM@xxxxxxxxxx > > >writes: > > > > > ><< Don't think so, but Qantas would now. It made JFK-NRT, for sure, > > > but that's over 1000 miles shorter. >> > > > > > >Over 1000 miles shorter, with nice winds coming back to JFK > > > > > >Well, Grant, since you are the main regular Aussie, did QF ever fly a >742B or > > >a 743 nonstop LAX-SYD or LAX-MEL? Or did they only do it with the SPs >until > > >the 744s came. Also, did the SPs have weight restrictions, or could they >be > > >loaded to the hilt? > >